I see everybody keeps saying "2nd Amendment" this, "2nd Amendment" that...

I see everybody keeps saying "2nd Amendment" this, "2nd Amendment" that. You're looking at something that was adopted in 1791. Ladies and Gentlemen... we live in the 21st century, it should be about time that we do something about old rules. The 2nd Amendment and the "Right to bear arms" was only approved to prevent others from entering property and committing treason. A time when the "police" were not so wide spread as it is today.

It's time to join the rest of the world in the modern era of common sense gun regulation.

Other urls found in this thread:

ncc-1776.org/
info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-InternmentResettlement.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The only 'common sense gun regulation' we need is finger off trigger.

Get 3/4ths of the states to have a constitutional convention to change it then.
Oh right, you can't. You are a extreme vocal minority that is more shrill than their size.

Say it with me:

SHALL

Standard citizens really don't need any more than typical infantry oriented weaponry because they are so numerous and already inside the country in question.

If you were to have an actual open rebellion the government would literally have absolutely no power to stop it. You cannot use force properly against your own citizens in such a way as to quell it. It is an unrecoverable situation.


Today's battleground is one of information, citizens owning tanks/battleships/nukes/whatever isn't even relevant.

The 2nd Amendment was also written at a time where America didn't have a standing army. For the most part the US has never really had a standing army up until WWII.

sage

Of course you, lacking any qualification whatsoever, are fully qualified to define "common sense" for the rest of us.

NOT

I'm glad you made this shitty argument, OP. When you have a rebuttal to this, I'll think of you as less of a fag.

Yes, give your guns.

Obviously criminals will give theirs too

Go fuck yourself, commie.

I didn't know that the government didn't have cannons and trained cavalry then.

As far as I'm concerned, your 2nd Amendment has already been infringed.

C U R R E N T Y E A R
U
R
R
E
N
T

Y
E
A
R

BE

The intent of the 2nd amendment was also to provide the people with means to resist the government if it ever went tyrannical. Even if futile, the very fact that there is a resistance would make the tyrannical government head towards destruction b/c the US can't handle a civil war

INFRINGED

see:

The 2nd amendment isn't just a theoretical concept. Citizen armament is a proven method of destroying unfit governments.

It doesn't take anything more than 50,000 or more guys with AK-47's to bring an entire first world nation state to it's knees.

>Bow down and grt cucked by the state, plebs.

even the image you posted undercuts your point you monstrous dolt

ncc-1776.org/

kek supports the 2nd Amendment and opposes gun control, the tool of moloch

>INFRINGED

"Infringing on your right to own firearms"
Depends on how you define and interpret "infringe." Totally fine to disagree on the interpretation.
But just from a practical perspective, I think the interpretation that any regulation or restriction means you're violating the 2nd amendment is kind of stupid. You can't just let people buy weapons that are capable of mass murder with no regulation, it's reckless, especially when we put (mainly black) people in jail for smoking a fricken plant. If you interpret the statement as placing restrictions = infringement on the fundamental right, you have to be for 0 restrictions and regulations.

Read this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now, look at the last part of the 2nd amendment: "shall not be infringed." Now kill yourself.

>MUH TANKS
fuck this meme, haven't you seen the Iraq war? militia can still do serious damage, even if you have nukes.

sage this shit

>it's this shitty thread again

...

>ladies and gentlemen
>daring to assume my gender in TWENTYSIXTEEN when I identify as a proud Russian MiG-29

INFRINGED

>1791. Ladies and Gentlemen... we live in the 21st century
fuck off current year fag
do you really think it's only for resisting the military?
it's also self defense
and yes you could do some damage with jsut a gun
the military doesn't have an unlimited amount of tanks, drones, and aircraft
they still rely on infantry to take and hold key positions

...

Governments that cannot be held accountable by the people will do shit without concern for the people. This is tyranny, this is what the US government was founded to avoid.

It's not feasible to hold a government accountable for what they do through politics or laws or government, because the government has control of the system and could change the laws for themselves.

The only way the government can be held accountable to the people is through threat of force if the people grow discontent with the government.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

2nd amendment guarded the private citizen's rights to own battleships, cannons, grenade launchers as well as these things back when ot was adopted in the first place and the people did indeed own those things.

The founding fathers believed that each state should have it's own militia so a tyrannical federal goverment could not enforce it's authority over states that are willing to fight for their rights.

>Implying drone operators and tanker crews aren't people who die when you shoot them

>Implying that since the government is already too powerful we should just give up

>Implying a totalitarian state is more civilized then a free one

>Implying old = bad

Why don't you just fuck off you statist scum and stop trying to shackle others simply because you are too much of a parasite to do for yourself.

Also reminder that the US military machine lost to a bunch of rice farmers with guns in Vietnam.

Yes. It has.

1 defeat doesn't mean we surrender. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

I think we need to give every citizen a complimentary predator drone, desu.

Insurgencies will always triumph vs a standing national military.

That's why the North triumphed in Vietnam.
It's why the Mujahadeen beat the Soviets.
It's why the NATO occupation of the Middle East failed.

It fundamentally comes down to the economics. National standing militaries are only good at combatting other national standing militaries because outcomes hinge on decisive pitched battles, and losses are about the same in terms of the financial value of destroyed assets.

Insurgencies are the pinnacle example of cost efficiency, and that's why National armies ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS break their own backs trying to fight them.

For example: It costs an estimated $44,887 to field a single Marine. Not counting the prolonged/sustained cost of keeping him active/deployed in the field.

How much does it cost to field an Insurgent? It costs the price of the semi automatic rifle and ammunition you give him. They don't take wages, they have no insurances. As idealogue warriors, they are in the fight for totally different reasons that make them willing to endure shit in a pursuit that is statistically likely to get them killed.

Think about the economics of an IED attack: What does it cost to make a bomb? Maybe $100 in scrap parts? Maybe $400 maximum for a really big one?

Go bury that next to a road.

Best case scenario it detonates and kills some enemy soldiers. Now is the key time to remember that 40k that it costs just to train a Marine plus the multiplier of however many you've killed.

Worst case scenario, they find it. How many men, and how many man hours did it take them to find, and destroy your IED? Hours, I'll bet. Each man hour spent has a price tag associated with it for a standing army. If you assume it took 4 guys 4 hours to deal with your bomb, the cost expenditure still stands heavily in your favor.

In both outcomes, you've won the resource war by handy margins. This is why standing armies cannot fight insurgencies effectively. It's unwinnable for them

>ideas should be changed because they're old and for no other reason
>the gubbermint didn't have an advantage with cannons, war ships and organized cavalry
>a bunch of fucking sand people with 1950s slavshit aren't doing a good job of repelling the almighty American Military Apparatus

>1 post by this ID

SAGED AND REPORTED, STOP MAKING THIS THREAD

Shall not be infringed literally means "the action of limiting or undermining something". The right to bear arms has already been infringed based on ANY firearm being limited. That means a ruling that Californians are not able to bear M60's is technically unconstitutional. It might not sound like a smart thing to you but that's what the constitution says. The constitution also says the primary reason for this is for citizens to protect themselves against a tyrannical government, as in US citizens have a legal right and obligation under the constitution for an armed revolution against the government whenever it becomes "tyrannical".

...

...

That bipod is installed incorrectly.

>A time when the "police" were not so wide spread as it is today.
The police arent so widespread they can respond to somebody breaking into my house faster than I can shoot that intruder
>It's time to join the rest of the world in the modern era of common sense gun regulation.
What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand?

Fuck off fag

Amen to that brother. This is all true true true.

You're right.
I should be able to buy, keep, and purchase ammunition for my own tanks and drones.

define proletariat
the people is pretty unambiguous

I
T
S

2
0
1
6

CEDE YOUR RIGHTS AWAY YOU FUCKING SHITLORDS

I dont understand this argument.

The roach military tried a coup, a lost to the citizen and cop roach.

thats a lot of 7s

It all depends on how you define and interpret infringe. It has more than one meaning look it up. The world isn't black and white.

fuck your meme, if we had full authority to steamroll Iraq we would destroy the enemy in a few days

Comparing Marxism to Capitalism in that picture is like comparing Islam vs Christianity based on that they both believe in prophets.

not sure if retarded, if we had the full authority to steamroll vietnam and iraq those wars would have lates less than a week. See WW2 holland as an example you dumb faggot

Fuck outa here pussy

It enrages me that scumbags like you were lucky enough to be born in the US, you don't deserve that passport you've got. You're an abomination.

The only thing your picture conveys to me is that citizens should be allowed to own armed tanks and reaper drones.

NOT

...

You literally posted in your image the exact counter argument to what you're saying.

>It all depends on how you define and interpret infringe.

As an American citizen I interpret this to mean the 2nd amendment is being infringed upon and being a US citizen this document applies to me and not you, so it doesn't matter how you or any Non-American citizen interprets the declaration. It's not a new argument, that's why some people see it as so black and white. Unless you or anyone is actually going to attempt to take guns away it doesn't matter anyways I guess.

BE

INFRINGED

BE

AS IT MAY THEY ARE DANGEROUS AND IT IS 1776 THE CURRENT YEAR SO I GUESS WE SHOULD GIVE UP THE GUNS YALL

Look it up. You'll see a couple different ways to define infringe. You can't just choose the one you agree with and tell people the other is wrong.

If a well regulated militia (ie, the standing army of the entire civilian population) is necessary to the security of our nation, why aren't we allowed to drive tanks or fighter jets? Our little pea shooters aren't going to stop a tyrannical government from blowing us to all hell with their million dollar bullet bombs.

>Implying that a few fiddled knobs and pulled levers would result in completely different outcomes in all of those battles
>What is Chechen Insurgency?
>Vladimir Putin most decisive, aggressive, replete military leader in the world
>Maybe Vlad should call you for advice on how to end the separatist violence that he's been dealing with for over 15 years
>You sound like you should be clad in military brass for your advanced war-college next level strategizing against insurgencies
>Such a common problem around the world that you would literally never go an unemployed day for the rest of your life in your work as a military adviser
>Make sure you bring your book about the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands as your source material

Restrictions would infringe upon our rights, friend.

why not?

just fucking with you m8. There are leftists crazy enough to make that argument though.

The "common sense restrictions" are just the small edge of the wedge. Make them fight for every single vowel in every sentence of every piece of legislation they propose, otherwise it'll be too late to go back.

Thats fair, I still personally define infringe as stated above. I don't expect you to understand why so many Americans feel this way because you are Canadian and I can only imagine how stupid you think Americans are for clinging onto the old cross but the history of Canada is so different from America. Since our creation, we have been at war 222 out of the 239 years of our existence. Does that explain anything to you? If not it's cool we can agree to disagree on this issue. You don't fight wars without guns, and if you're a warring nation, right or wrong, you don't fight wars without guns.

If we pose no threat to the government, why do they want to remove our weapons?

...

In all likelihood rifles would be enough, but yeah - you're right.
The second amendment does cover tanks and fighter jets, and they should be legal for civilian ownership.

To disarm us for the coming genocide. They want less whites and everyone knows it

info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-InternmentResettlement.pdf

Because they need to make sure they're ready in case they ever need to activate this US army approved plan to intern large amounts of the civilian population.

The US military/govt couldn't defeat it's own citizens in a war without also killing all of its supporters and levelling the cities which it wants to control.

A large enough group of heavily armed citizens with intent to kill government supporters could easily overpower any police force in any city.

Basically your pic is an argument for less gun control and Larger/more powerful weapons in the hands of citizens.

Vlad and Assad just showed the world how to deal with insurgents in Aleppo. Whether the rest of the world is willing to stomach their methods is another story.

It's true that the world has yet to see anybody address the insurgency problem by disregarding civilian lives to pursue much more aggressive tactics.

This could easily change the way a lot of these conflicts are fought if they become more widespread. But until we see more Aleppo's happen, Aleppo simply represents a won battle, rather than a conquered theater of war.

It remains to be proven how the fall of Aleppo is actually going to affect insurgent operations in the region.

Who gives a shit you posted this picture, now it's saved and ready for use.

We live in a time where not only the 2nd Amendment needs to go. But also the 1st, and maybe the rest of them too.

the top panel ust isnt true. Government funded militaries had canons, cavalry, ships, training, and the most advanced and best maintained small arms available.

also all this does is make the argument that citizens should be allowed to own tanks and ICBMs. (protip: we should)

>Vietnam
>Afghanistan
>Iraq
>Afghanistan again

Lel.

You're fucking dumb.

R A R E
A
R
E

How do you even have internet?

Also by all means, qualify how anything he said is wrong.

You are currently arguing from the liberal "Everyone who disagrees with me is X" school of debate.

>what is Vietnam
>what is Afghanistan(both US and USSR)

OP is a fucking retard

SHALL

/thread

Let me tell you a story nigger.

When I was 11, me and my father went to go get a christmas tree. While we were gone 2 niggers broke into my house, raped my mother and sister, then stabbed them over 130 times. All for 200 dollars in a jar above our fridge.

My father became an alcoholic and eventually killed himself when I turned 15

I stayed with my grandparents until I turned 18.

By the time I turned 25 I had a wife a 3 year old son and a 1 year old daughter.

I left to goto work when 5 minutes later my wife called me saying someone had broken into my house.

I returned home and pulled my 1911 out of the glovebox

I went through my busted front door and ran upstairs to see a nigger trying to bust down my bedroom door.

I blew a hole in his skull, tracked down the two other niggers in my house and unloaded all I had left into them.

I will be honest, I was scared for my families safety but I have never felt a rush like that before.

What you don' t understand is that a part of the army always rebel against his government. "Hey Fidel you can't win against Batista He has tanks,airplanes and shit." "I guess you are right,let's abandon our fight so we can go to get drunk Guevara."

Liberals are defeatist losers even in their own cushy personal lives. They can't fathom things like victory against the odds, and uphill struggles.

probably was the greatest feeling ever. i'm fucking jealous.

this

you forgot your canadian proxy.

The picture has a point. 2nd Amendment should include tanks and other advanced weaponry.

...

this too, faggot